Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep, no one's arguing for the deletion. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can do if they want to. - Bobet 11:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism

 * — (View AfD)

This article was already speedily deleted but nominator and deleting admin agreed am t DRV to give it a run at AfD. The claims were WP:CSD – no assertion of notability (by the nominator) and WP:CSD – no context (by the deleting admin). This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. See the soon-to-be-moved-from-userspace version here.  Seems like a worthwhile article and sourcing won't be a problem, and seems to be too large to place into the full Tablighi Jamaat article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to existing main article Tablighi Jamaat Substantial overlap with some of the subsection headings. Plus unwieldy title and I don't see enough justification for a separate article for what's left over -would work fine as a subsection paragraph in the main article and a condensed double-column wikilink list (table automatically takes more room). Plus, I don't see the special value of listing each allegation in a table (and is every single box in the Accuser column going to be JTF Gitmo?). Bwithh 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition I think this article content needs to undergo rebalancing for POV The whole premise of this article content seems to be to emphasize that there is a prevailing view that the missionary group Tablighi Jamaat is a terrorist jihadist incubator, but this appears to be highly contested in US expert discourse on this area. For instance, Marc Sageman testified to the 9/11 Commission that:"peaceful fundamentalist Muslim groups such as the Tablighi Jamaat may help to promote a peaceful message and repudiate terrorist violence. We need to elicit their help for they attract the same clusters of alienated young men as the Global Salafi Jihad and might provide them with a peaceful alternative to terror. Many such organizations are penetrated by the global jihad and we should help them regain their purity by unmasking those that subvert their message."
 * There's a good summary of the contested perceptions here, provided by the United States Institute of Peace(a US Government institution whose board of directors (including representatives of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) is appointed by the President) Bwithh 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a serious problem with merging. If you take a close look at Talk:Tablighi Jamaat you will see that:
 * a lot of the contributors to that article are extremely inexperienced wikipedia contributors, and have never heard of the wikipedia's commitment to WP:NPOV. I created a modest subsection about the allegations against Tablighi followers who ended up in Guantanamo -- the most famous of whom was Murat Kurnaz the Turk who grew up in Germany.  That section kept being deleted -- without explanation, by people who were more committed to the Tablighi movement than they were to the Wikipedia.
 * You can see I proposed splitting out a separate article about the allegations on April 29 2006. And again on June 14th.
 * December 22 2005 Added a (referenced) paragraph about a Guantanamo captive's detention being justified by association with Tablighi -- deleted without explanation.
 * December 27 2005 Added a (referenced) paragraph about Guantanamo captives' detention being justified by association with Tablighi -- deleted without explanation.
 * January 4 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
 * February 18 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
 * April 3 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
 * June 14 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
 * June 29 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
 * July 9 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep -- Disclaimer, I created this article, and was in the middle of working on it when it was speedy deleted out from under me.
 * The continued extrajudicial detention of at least three dozen Guantanamo captives has been justified by their alleged association with the Tablighi movement. My interpretation of WP:NPOV us wikipedia contributors should not be taking sides as to whether the the US allegation are credible.  What we should do is provide the background necessary for wikipedia readers to make up their own mind as to the allegation's credibility.  Coverage of these allegations is, I believe, an essential component for the wikipedia to fully cover the issues arising from the detention of captives taken in the war on terror.  --  Geo Swan 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd like to hear from the anonymous administrator who originally speedy deleted the article, even though it had a {hangon} on it. If I understand what is going on here, I am having to spend hours, jumping through hoops, because they think their original deletion was justified -- yet they haven't offered a single defense of their original deletion -- which I believe it was agreed during the deletion review, was in violation of policy.  --  Geo Swan 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All deletion history is stored at []; this should show you who deleted it and give a reason. Akihabara 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Geo Swan. He seems a reasonable person who has been trying to do the right thing. Akihabara 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions.   --  &rArr;  bsnowball  08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I originally tagged this for a speedy A7 at a time the article was in a much different form, didn't appear to assert notability, and lacked any sourcing. I probably jumped the gun and should have given the editor a chance to make further improvements.  I still don't have an opinion on whether the article is factual or not (I'm just glad there -are- sources now) but I certainly think it is now a lot better than 95% of WP articles. Tarinth 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geo Swan; the draft is impressive work on a difficult topic. Bwithh's suggestion of a merge is superficially attractive, but seems likely to be problematic in the circumstances noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.